Al-Quaida's at it again - London hit

flags_200w.gif
 
masochusetts said:
Compare and contrast:

http://home.comcast.net/~emcgovern1/home01.jpg[img][/quote]

Jealously works in different ways. [roll]

Too bad they'll never understand freedom.
 
Nickle said:
TonyD said:
"Homeland Security". Catchy little title to label your domestic military force.

I just wonder how many of them (us) will actually obey obviously un-Constitutional orders when it's time to deal with the public. I don't know many Guardsmen that'll do "the wrong thing", that is, they'll uphold the Constitution, not the whims of a tyrant.

They will uphold whatever they are led to believe is proper. It's been done in the past.
 
I'm not commenting on the reason for spending such as the cost of the war, homeland security, etc, but the fact that the money for these things has to come from somewhere. I understand enough about economics to know that you cannot increase spending and decrease income without paying for it somewhere down the line. There might have been something referred to as the "new math" when I was a kid, but arithmatic has not changed.

If I were asked to describe the Democratic Party, the first words that would come to mind would be "weak", "directionless", and perhaps "valueless". As a person who has leanings toward that party (although I am a registered Republican), I might compare it to a prostitute with no customers. Ready to sell everything but without anyone who wants it.

I did not mean to refer to everyone as politicians, rather that they are the ones who benefit most from the labelling, they are the ones who are doing the blaming, the accusing, the criticizing.

I think we have lost a lot in the name of Homeland Security. Not too long ago my sister was prevented from bringing her knitting onto the passenger deck of the Nantucket Ferry. I guess she might have hijacked it and run it into the John Hancock building. The TSA (Thousands Standing Around) agents here are recognizable as the cronically unemployable. The system has been proven porous and yet we have poured billions into it. I believe when another strike against us is attempted, it will succeed. I had a 1 qt saucepan taken from me at Dallas/Fort Worth so I wouldn't use it against the aircrew. But a friend accidentally travelled with a pocket knife he forgot to leave home. I think money should be spent on additional security, but not at the expense of our freedom.

I'm going to stop jabbering because I'm missing most of the discussion!
 
dvl said:
I believe when another strike against us is attempted, it will succeed.

I agree with you 100% on this. You can't prevent all of it. It someone is will to commit suicide for a cause, you can't stop it, you can only hope to contain as much as possible.
 
My favorite "Stupid Profiling" story is when my brother-in-law was returning to Kuwait from R&R. I go to see him off, and, since it's a duty day for me, I'm in BDU's. He's in his DCU's. I get a pass to go through the gate. Guess who has to take off their footwear? Yup, you guessed it, the two LEAST LIKELY people to hi-jack the damned plane. Hell, I didn't even have a boarding pass.

dvl, I agree with you, spending is too high, taxes too low (until we reduce spending and clean up some debt).
 
The only reason I post my thoughts here is because I am confident that we can discuss stuff with mutual respect. That has been borne out.

My participation on several gun related boards has exposed me to a lot of points of view that I have added to the information that forms my opinions. As you might imagine, these views are predominantly very conservative. And I'm all ears or eyes or something...
 
dvl said:
The only reason I post my thoughts here is because I am confident that we can discuss stuff with mutual respect. That has been borne out.

My participation on several gun related boards has exposed me to a lot of points of view that I have added to the information that forms my opinions. As you might imagine, these views are predominantly very conservative. And I'm all ears or eyes or something...

I have to agree with you on your last post, as well.
 
Taxes too low? You have to be kidding. There's a Hell of a lot of ways to reduce wasteful government spending without sacraficing security.
 
TonyD said:
Taxes too low? You have to be kidding. There's a Hell of a lot of ways to reduce wasteful government spending without sacraficing security.

You better believe it Bunkie!! I can think of a number of them right off the top of my head without having to use too much brain power.
 
I say reduce spending FIRST, then AFTER some of the DEFICIT is paid down by the raised taxes, then reduce the taxes down lower than they were before the raise.

Don't worry, I won't tell any politicians this, because I don't trust them to lower the taxes after the raise is no longer needed.

I also believe in the Flat Tax, and simplify the system in the process. Should be able to significantly lower the number of IRS employees and save money there.

Legalize and tax Marihuana. I don't particularly like the stuff, but, we'll never stop the use of it. Just like the end of Prohibition. Might as well tax it, and use the money to pay down the deficit.

Eliminate prosecution of obviously improper cases by certain Federal Agencies, especially the BATFE, in fact take the F and E right out of their agenda and name. That leaves Alcohol and Tobacco, and we can then eliminate that as well. The NFA 34 was nothing more than a "welfare system" to not lay off uneeded Treasury agents after Prohibition ended. Since the BATFE hasn't been prosecuting many "real" gun crimes, the FBI and other agencies can take over those cases.

There wouldn't be ANY need to lay the BATFE leftovers off, they could be picked up in other agencies to patrol the borders.

End the majority of Social Welfare programs, as they are right now. There's been more efficient ways to accomplish the same end.

Only problem with all this, it makes sense.
 
You will not lower the deficit by raising taxes. You will only stunt the economy, put us in recession and raise the deficit by increased govt. payouts, among other things.

By lowering taxes, the govt. increases its tax intake through a stimulated economy.
 
Nickle said:
I won't tell any politicians this, because I don't trust them to lower the taxes after the raise is no longer needed.

You're correct here. Just like they said they sould take out the tolls once the pike was paid for. [lol]
 
While I'm all in favor of cutting government spending (Want a list of things I'd cut? For starters, simply take every federal program that isn't clearly authorized under Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution and cut it entirely; after all, it's already unconstitutional), the constant worry about the deficit is totally misguided. While today's federal debt is at a record level in both actual and real dollar terms, as a percentage of GDP it isn't at all out of line with post WWII trends. In 1946 gross federal debt was about 114% of GDP. By the late 70's the ratio was down to about 32%. By 1995 it had grown to a peak of just over 65%. The estimates for 2004 place the ratio at just of 50%, roughly the same level as when JFK took office, and hardly a justification for panic. The simple fact is that cutting tax rates increases economic growth, which can in turn actually increase tax revenues. All you've got to do is think about how much work you'd be doing (and thus how much taxable income you'd be earning) if you knew that you'd be paying 98% of it to the government rather than the 30-60% you're currently paying after taking into account all the hidden taxes that they want you to think somebody else is paying..

You get a similar picture when you look at the federal debt in comparison with all debt: government, corporate and personal. Back in the 50's, the federal debt represented roughly 75% of all debt in the US. It stayed roughly around that level until 1981, when the libs started moaning about the deficits caused by the Reagan tax cuts (only for the rich, of course), totally ignoring the fact that the congress was increasing spending at record rates. At that point, it started to drop (Yes, you read that right.) By the time that the Clintonistas took over, it was down to roughly 53-54%, where it remained up through 2001, the most recent data that were available when I looked a couple of months ago.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled discussion of guns, shooting and other more interesting topics. (Unless you're the sort of sicko who wants more lectures from an actual economist. [!] )

Ken
 
Yeah, I'm really not that fond of the raising of taxes. But, if that's what it takes, only in the short term, then so be it. It's all theory anyways, since the politicians wouldn't lower the taxes later. Fact is, they just can't be trusted.

Reducing useless Gov't agencies would be the best solution.
 
Whew, we can all relax now.

"The United Nations Security Council is expected to pass a Special Resolution condemning the apparent terrorist attacks which occurred this morning in London. This according to an anonymous, high-ranking official at the organization."

Well folks, now that the UN is "expected" to denounce the "apparent" attacks, I , for one, feel a tremendous amount of relief.
After all, we all know that terrorists (especially those of the Islamic fundamentalist variety) are horrified at the prospect of prompting such a harsh response from the UN.
I think everything's gonna be OK........Right.
 
I was going to respond to that, but anything I would've posted would've been very non-PC.

IF you need to borrow the "appropriate tool" to deal with Blue Pests, and you're in VT, I've got just the ticket. RomAK 3.
 
Tim3256 said:
Whew, we can all relax now.

"The United Nations Security Council is expected to pass a Special Resolution condemning the apparent terrorist attacks which occurred this morning in London. This according to an anonymous, high-ranking official at the organization."

Well folks, now that the UN is "expected" to denounce the "apparent" attacks, I , for one, feel a tremendous amount of relief.
After all, we all know that terrorists (especially those of the Islamic fundamentalist variety) are horrified at the prospect of prompting such a harsh response from the UN.
I think everything's gonna be OK........Right.
Well thank goodness that the UN condemned the attacks. I mean, otherwise they're the first group I would have suspected... And it's even a SPECIAL resolution... Golly. So will it arrive on a short bus?
[roll]
 
Back
Top Bottom